> This is just personal opinion but I'd hate to see the Ruby GUI API
> standardize on anything C++ based. I've used a few C++ UI toolkits and,
> while they all worked, they were just so un-Ruby. Part of the joy
> of Ruby is
> that you don't have to start subclassing to get anything done.
>
> I'm very much a newbie here but the idea that you would use something as
> dynamic as Ruby for the model and something as static as C++ for the UI is
> just backwards. You can live with a static, strongly typed language in the
> model: some would argue that it's an advantage there. Views really benefit
> from dynamism and weak typing.

hi

i don't know if i understand correctly, but libraries like FOX and Tk were
all written in a language other than ruby, but their ruby wrappers are well
written in the dynamic ruby style. sort of. mostly. i hope.

the issue remains: windows users, in general, simply cannot take anything
other than native components seriously. and i'm certain that mac and some
other OS people will feel the same way. perhaps one can provide a standard
layer, formally part of the language (designed properly) that supports
native plugins.

i think that the setting of a gui standard now is very important for the
language. else we get the current mess of strangely written half-working
disconnected libs.

regards
--Pieter